This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 7765 - Maybe progress should be named fetchcachefile or some such
Summary: Maybe progress should be named fetchcachefile or some such
Alias: None
Product: HTML WG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: pre-LC1 HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson) (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other other
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: LC
Assignee: Ian 'Hixie' Hickson
QA Contact: HTML WG Bugzilla archive list
Keywords: NE
Depends on:
Reported: 2009-09-29 16:11 UTC by contributor
Modified: 2010-10-04 14:33 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:


Description contributor 2009-09-29 16:11:28 UTC

Maybe progress should be named fetchcachefile or some such instead as that seems much more closely to what is used for. However, I don't quite understand why you would not want more detailed progress events here so you can show a progress bar to the user while updating the application.

Posted from:
Comment 1 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2009-09-30 10:08:40 UTC
Unless you do one progress bar per file (unlikely, given that each file will typically only take 250ms), you don't know how many bytes the total will be. So the only way to do a progress bar that I can see is to use the number of files as the total. Which is what the spec does.

Not sure why we'd use another event name though; can you elaborate?
Comment 2 Anne 2009-09-30 15:17:41 UTC
Updating a progress bar every 250ms will give you bad UI. You might as well not have it then I think. From experience with progress events for XMLHttpRequest you want something about every 50ms to get a smooth download bar.

The reason I suggested another name is that progress is very generic and we might want to use it for something else in the future. The function here is also very specific so it seems better to keep the name consistent with that.
Comment 3 Olivier Gendrin 2009-10-01 11:27:05 UTC
Anne, you misread what Ian wrote.

Anyway, the progress bar update period should be on behalf of the UA according to the capacity of the computer running it, every 50ms could harm the user experience a little bit more on busy computer.
Comment 4 Anne 2009-10-01 11:33:22 UTC
I don't think I did.

UAs are of course always allowed to do things differently in face of limited resources though dispatching an event every 50ms is really not that bad. Consider all the animation effects people implement with time outs that run every 15ms.
Comment 5 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2009-10-18 10:38:49 UTC
We don't have the data, we can't just artificially make up the data. So I don't see how to make it any better. _If_ someone wants to make a progress bar of any kind, they'll need the data. That's the only use case I had in mind when making this event available. So it makes sense to call it 'progress' IMHO.